Mr. Speaker, last year Canadians spent more than $25 billion on prescription drugs. This cost could be cut in half with a national pharmacare program, but the federal government is showing no leadership on this issue. The minister did not attend the conference of the ministers of health or the Canadian Medical Association conference.

When will the government listen and take measures to reduce the cost of drugs?

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the importance of affordable access to drugs as part of the quality health care program. That is why we will continue to honour the 2004 health accord, which provides $41.3 billion in additional funding to provinces and territories.

As part of the accord, our government agreed to a shared agenda with provinces and territories to improve our collective management of pharmaceutical products, recognizing our complementary roles in the sector. In addition, we have made investments in Health Infoway and a number of other projects that are important to provinces and territories, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, prescription drugs are the fastest growing part of health care costs and they are threatening the sustainability of our universal system, but there are solutions. France, Sweden, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand all have universal drug insurance programs. Their citizens spend up to 50% less for drugs than Canadians do for the same medications.

Why is the government sitting on its hands when Canadians are desperate for a workable solution to their unaffordable drug bills?

Mr. Speaker, again, our government continues to be a large player in pharmaceutical benefits, spending approximately $600 million last year to cover pharmaceutical products, medical supplies and equipment for diverse populations and individuals, including first nations and Inuit. The responsibility is with the provincial and territorial governments to decide whether or not to provide their residents with publicly financed drug therapy.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government strongly supports our troops. Since we formed government in 2006, we have drastically increased support for our brave young men and women in uniform while they are abroad. We also provide more assistance to help them reintegrate in civilian society when they return home to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question as well as for his concern for veterans. I would also like to thank him for his work as chair of the standing committee.

Yesterday we announced $2 billion to help our veterans, including those returning from Afghanistan, who have been seriously injured, as well as those who are at the lower end of the income scale. We are introducing three measures to help our veterans. We want to show them the respect and dignity they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Conservative government wants to take us back to the dark days of the 1950s. Not only are the Conservatives muzzling anyone who disagrees with them, but even worse, they are keeping the public completely in the dark. We have learned that all media inquiries to scientists working for Natural Resources Canada must now be approved by the minister's office, without exception.

What is the minister so afraid of that he will not let his experts speak freely? What is he trying to hide?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are not muzzling anyone. The previous Liberal government adopted a policy on government communications in 2002, and we improved that policy in 2006. We expanded the transparency criteria, in particular regarding marketing and public opinion research. These are false accusations, as my colleague knows very well.

We have been perfectly clear about the fact that we want to communicate, and it is only logical that the minister should be the main spokesperson for the department.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources and Prime Minister's political lieutenant has in his possession notes concerning the exploitation of shale gas. The minister is not being asked to get involved in this issue, which falls under Quebec's jurisdiction.

However, does the minister plan on making public and transmitting to the BAPE the information he has on the potential effects of shale gas exploitation?

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to answering. It is odd to hear about unpublicized documents, when they are documents that were obtained through the Access to Information Act. Everything is there; the documents are already public.

I also asked experts from the Geological Survey of Canada whether they could provide additional information on what is going on in Quebec. I have spoken with my counterpart in Quebec. It is clear that we need information in order to raise the level of public debate, and the Geological Survey of Canada will certainly do its part.

Mr. Speaker, world leaders are meeting this week to review progress on global poverty goals.

The U.K. and other countries are keeping their commitments despite tough economic times. Sadly, Canada has been called out as a laggard. Conservatives have frozen aid and decided not to honour our commitment to help end global poverty. It should not be this way.

The Prime Minister has an opportunity to change this trend at the UN this week. Will he lift the freeze on our foreign aid budget, or will he just cop out?

Jim AbbottConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of Canada's record on the international stage. Canada is playing a part in advancing the millennium development goals.

Canada met its commitment to double international assistance to Africa from 2003-04 levels to $2.1 billion in 2008-09. We have forgiven more than $1 billion in debt to the world's poorest country and we are on track to make our commitment to double our international assistance from the 2001-02 levels.

This is a record that our government is proud of and I know all Canadians are, too.

Mr. Speaker, today the President of the Treasury Board announced that members of Parliament, senators and staff in the opposition leader's office are no longer exempt from the lobbying rules that apply to ministers and senior public servants.

Could the minister tell the House why this is such good news for Canadian democracy?

Stockwell DayConservativePresident of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

Mr. Speaker, we brought changes into the Lobbying Act so Canadians can be assured that all members of Parliament and senators and the staff who go with the offices of the leader of the opposition in the Senate and the House of Commons are subject to the concerns and views of their constituents and not to the concerns of special interest groups. That is why the law now applies to everybody.

It is a new era of ongoing openness and transparency in this particular area. We brought this act in and we are continuing to improve it.

David AndersonConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order with regard to the question of privilege raised by the NDP member for Sackville—Eastern Shore on November 3, 2009, during the second session of the 40th Parliament and the subsequent finding of a prima facie case of privilege by you.

The case revolved around a ten percenter that was sent into the member's riding, which talked about the long gun registry. It has a picture of a duck hunter on it and it says, “The failed long-gun registry. Hard on farmers and hunters. Useless against real criminals”. It talked about how the local MP had worked to support the registry. It asked the question, “Is that the support you expect you’re your local MP?”.

The House may recall that on November 3, 2009, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore rose in the House with a great deal of indignation. On page 6568 of Debates , the member loudly protested the ten percenter that was sent into his riding that suggested, heaven forbid, that he might support keeping the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. He called such a suggestion “outright fabrication of the facts”, and—

It was not a question of privilege. It was a point of order. I want to hear what this has to do with the rules of the House. I have heard absolutely nothing on that subject yet. This is a point of order that we are hearing. It has to have something to do with procedure. Householders may have been a question of privilege, but they are not procedure. I would like to hear what the procedural point is.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay out a bit of introduction and then I will certainly get to that.

The member positively stated that he had worked to get rid of the long gun registry for twelve and a half years. He claimed his reputation had been deliberately impugned and that the situation was intolerable. Based on his statements, Mr. Speaker, you found there was a prima facie case of privilege in regard to his question of privilege and referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Order, please. The member is reviewing the history of a case that may have gone to a committee and may have made a decision. I have no recollection. It does not appear to me to be a point of order affecting the proceedings of the House. Accordingly, I do not think there is a point of order here. I will proceed with tabling of documents.

Pursuant to section 28 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, it is my duty to present to the House the report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on an inquiry in relation to the hon. member for St. Catharines.

Shelly GloverConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of three annual reports for 2007-08, including: the annual report of the implementation committee on the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement; the annual report of the implementation committee on the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement; and the 2007-08 annual report of the Inuvialuit Implementation of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement Coordinating Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following four reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 15th report on selected departmental performance reports for 2008-09 Department of Industry and Department of Transport; the 16th report on chapter 2, “Risks of Toxic Substances” of the fall 2009 report of the Commission of the Environment and Sustainable Development; the 17th report on chapter 1, “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Programs” of the fall 2009 report of the Auditor General; and the 18th report of the committee on chapter 8, “Strengthening Aid Effectiveness - Canadian International Development Agency” of the fall 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to these four committee reports.